>From: Christian Biere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:18:12 +0100 > >Lloyd Bryant wrote: > > Just tested the SVN version. The sort is ASCENDING mtime (most recent >last). > > > > src/core/share.c:1164 return CMP(t1, t2); > > > > should be "return CMP(t2, t1);" for descending (most recent first). > >I know, I did this on purpose so that the indices are stable i.e., the >oldest file will have index 1 and stay there - until you untar something >with an older timestamp of course. I know I said I wanted to see the >newest files on top. Maybe they should be. We could simply deliver results >upside-down. >
Is there any advantage to keeping the indices stable? SHA1 calculation we've already looked at. The search table is rebuilt on each rescan, as is the hash table. If there's anything in the system that depends on those indices being stable after a rescan, then the whole sorting idea is in deep trouble..... Lloyd Bryant ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Gtk-gnutella-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtk-gnutella-devel
